Are Soc. Sec. and Medicare important to you?

[LoisR]

Since this topic is current, my oldest son asked if Social Security and Medicare are important to us.
We responded YES in they both provide financial security. We explained the obvious and also said without Soc. Security we could not have purchased the house we did in TV.
But that's us. Have others used Soc. Sec. for other needs or wants?
How about Medicare? Did it have a big impact on you when you joined?

[Dana1963]

Since this topic is current, my oldest son asked if Social Security and Medicare are important to us.
We responded YES in they both provide financial security. We explained the obvious and also said without Soc. Security we could not have purchased the house we did in TV.
But that's us. Have others used Soc. Sec. for other needs or wants?
How about Medicare? Did it have a big impact on you when you joined?
Yes it’s a supplement to my pensions and investments.

[davem4616]

Since this topic is current, my oldest son asked if Social Security and Medicare are important to us.
We responded YES in they both provide financial security. We explained the obvious and also said without Soc. Security we could not have purchased the house we did in TV.
But that's us. Have others used Soc. Sec. for other needs or wants?
How about Medicare? Did it have a big impact on you when you joined?


those entitlements allow us to be extremely generous with our church and the charities that we choose to support...as did the stimulus checks that we received earlier this year...and as will any future stimulus money

so from that perspective...yes, it's important to us.

[retiredguy123]

The level of importance for Social Security and Medicare is heavily dependent on a person's overall income. Both systems are designed to transfer wealth from higher income people to lower income people. All working people contribute to the system, but the distribution of benefits is very skewed in favor of those who did not contribute as much. In the case of Medicare, most people need it, and everyone receives the same benefits. But, higher income people pay more while working, and when they retire, they may pay as much as about 4 times the monthly Part B premium as those who pay the basic premium.

[Kenswing]

After paying into these programs for most of my life I just hope there's still something left when we finally retire.

[drcar]

those entitlements allow us to be extremely generous with our church and the charities that we choose to support...as did the stimulus checks that we received earlier this year...and as will any future stimulus money

so from that perspective...yes, it's important to us.

I believe that these programs are important to MANY people, but I do NOT like the term "entitlements", since I paid into them my entire life, I do not consider them entitlements.

[Stu from NYC]

I believe that these programs are important to MANY people, but I do NOT like the term "entitlements", since I paid into them my entire life, I do not consider them entitlements.

Agreed we paid for them and they owe it to us.

Hoping they will do something soon to put both on a firm footing.

[John41]

Since this topic is current, my oldest son asked if Social Security and Medicare are important to us.
We responded YES in they both provide financial security. We explained the obvious and also said without Soc. Security we could not have purchased the house we did in TV.
But that's us. Have others used Soc. Sec. for other needs or wants?
How about Medicare? Did it have a big impact on you when you joined?

We are middle class and Social Security and Medicare are important to our living moderately well with Medicare offsetting a very expensive operation a few years ago.

[dewilson58]

I believe that these programs are important to MANY people, but I do NOT like the term "entitlements", since I paid into them my entire life, I do not consider them entitlements.


some get offended by the word entitlement.

:shrug:by definition, they are entitlements.



noun
noun: entitlement; plural noun: entitlements


ththe fact of having a right to something.

[justjim]

The level of importance for Social Security and Medicare is heavily dependent on a person's overall income. Both systems are designed to transfer wealth from higher income people to lower income people. All working people contribute to the system, but the distribution of benefits is very skewed in favor of those who did not contribute as much. In the case of Medicare, most people need it, and everyone receives the same benefits. But, higher income people pay more while working, and when they retire, they may pay as much as about 4 times the monthly Part B premium as those who pay the basic premium.

Overall a good explanation. Many Villagers would be “in a world of hurt” without S. S. and Medicare. Especially Medicare.

[davem4616]

I believe that these programs are important to MANY people, but I do NOT like the term "entitlements", since I paid into them my entire life, I do not consider them entitlements.



my bad I absolutely did not intend to refer to them as 'entitlements'....I object to that term also...and for the life of me, I don't know why I used that term

We all paid into these systems with the expectation that when we retired we would benefit from having paid into them

sorry...I didn't mean to create controversy

[Aloha1]

Yes they are "entitlements" because we paid for them and therefore we are entitled to get our money back.

And for those who say, you're getting more back than you paid in, yes BUT, had we invested our payments at only 3% per year we would have had much more than SSA pays us today.

Not everyone is financially literate or disciplined enough to do this so there should have been a 2 tiered system for SSA. But since it's a Government run Ponzi Scheme that will never happen.

[Stu from NYC]

my bad I absolutely did not intend to refer to them as 'entitlements'....I object to that term also...and for the life of me, I don't know why I used that term

We all paid into these systems with the expectation that when we retired we would benefit from having paid into them

sorry...I didn't mean to create controversy

I know you did not mean anything by it but around here how does one not create controversy?:)

[JGVillages]

those entitlements allow us to be extremely generous with our church and the charities that we choose to support...as did the stimulus checks that we received earlier this year...and as will any future stimulus money

so from that perspective...yes, it's important to us.

Great perspective but SS is not an ENTITLEMENT. That’s our money even as mismanaged as it has been over decades.

[JGVillages]

Here is what happens when we put people who really are not disciplined in charge of SS.

Abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund Began in the 1980s
by Allen W. Smith / November 28th, 2009

The mishandling of Social Security funds has been going on since the mid-1980s. As soon as the surpluses, resulting from the 1983 payroll tax hike, first began to flow into the Treasury, politicians from both political parties began using the money like a giant slush fund. At that time, it would be at least 30 years before the funds would actually be needed for Social Security, so politicians developed the bad habit of “temporarily borrowing” the money and using it for non-Social Security purposes. That bad habit never was broken, and every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the tax hike, has been spent, leaving no real assets in the trust fund.

This is where the continuing problem started.

[Rapscallion St Croix]

If the US Govt, specifically, the military, had kept the promise of free medical care for the life of a retiree, I would not need Medicare.

[Art cov]

For most it’s perhaps a ok deal. But to be self employed and pay in 15.3 percent 12.4 is as ss and 2.9 as Medicare is high. A person making good money and wise investing all those years would be a fortune ahead to invest that 15.3 percent. To buy land 50 years ago and sell it today would have been great! Possibly millions ahead of the game. I know I could have made a lot of money on that 15.3 percent for 50 years. Some people may have been broke with nothing while others would have been millionaires many times over. Just think most collect a check for 10 years n more while others pass before their first check. How sad is that investment!

[Topspinmo]

some get offended by the word entitlement.

:shrug:by definition, they are entitlements.



noun
noun: entitlement; plural noun: entitlements


ththe fact of having a right to something.

And they entitled themselves to my paycheck for 48 years also.

[Halibut]

Many Villagers would be “in a world of hurt” without S. S. and Medicare. Especially Medicare.

Indeed. I was born with cerebral palsy and my wife has two chronic, progressive illnesses -- I can't imagine us ever being able to afford health care in retirement without Medicare. Prescriptions costs alone already average $800/month.

Social security provides half our income, with savings making up the rest.

So yes, both are critically important to us.

[rustyp]

What is the real motive of this thread ? Political ? Ask your question a different way - If you are wealthy enough are you willing to give up your earned benefits for the greater good or no I sacrificed and paid into the system and now it's time to withdraw from my savings account. Almost a Catch 22.

[Nucky]

Since this topic is current, my oldest son asked if Social Security and Medicare are important to us.
We responded YES in they both provide financial security. We explained the obvious and also said without Soc. Security we could not have purchased the house we did in TV.
But that's us. Have others used Soc. Sec. for other needs or wants?
How about Medicare? Did it have a big impact on you when you joined?

Yes! SS is important and Medicare both were earned. Call it whatever you want but it better be there when we need it or the people who borrowed it better find out in advance how to get canes and crutches and assorted medical devices removed from their posteriors. :boom: :1rotfl: Can you imagine the uproar if every nickel promised isn't paid. The money will be there. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Our savings is taking a hit because of the Bang - Bang Shrimp Day. 4% Rule Forgetaboutit it's been about 40%. :ohdear:

[manaboutown]

Both are insurance as I see it. Once a person gets sufficient QCs, in the unfortunate event one becomes disabled both Social Security and Medicare kick in; at least they did for my daughter. If we pay SS until we reach full retirement age we collect a certain amount based largely on our earning history. Of course we have from age 62 to 70 to start collecting SS. Some do not live long enough to collect a dime, but they pay based on their earned income until they die.

Medicare started for me at age 65 and was I ever happy about that! I was paying over $10,000/year for a Blue Cross policy which was not all that great. I buy a United Healthcare supplement as well. So far I have been fortunate medically but one never knows and the most medical costs statistically usually occur during the last three years of life. I am not happy about paying far more for my medicare policy than I would if I had less income. That is essentially additional income tax IMHO. I am also not happy that SS and Medicare funds have been gutted by politicians.

My parents both needed and benefitted from SS and Medicare. I would have had to help them financially had they not had it. I believe both programs are conceptually wonderful but they have been mismanaged and abused.

[tophcfa]

those entitlements allow us to be extremely generous with our church and the charities that we choose to support...as did the stimulus checks that we received earlier this year...and as will any future stimulus money

so from that perspective...yes, it's important to us.

Please don’t call them entitlements. Entitlements are things that people expect as handouts. My wife and I paid into the system for our entire working lives and are not entitled to SS or Medicare, we are OWED it. If they never took all that $$$ out of out earnings then they would not be important to us because we would have invested it wisely and would not need it.

[mp.scanland]

Even though some do not like the term, by law they are entitlements. Research the law that established them, it stipulates they are entitlements

[Mohawksin]

Here is what happens when we put people who really are not disciplined in charge of SS.

Abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund Began in the 1980s
by Allen W. Smith / November 28th, 2009

The mishandling of Social Security funds has been going on since the mid-1980s. As soon as the surpluses, resulting from the 1983 payroll tax hike, first began to flow into the Treasury, politicians from both political parties began using the money like a giant slush fund. At that time, it would be at least 30 years before the funds would actually be needed for Social Security, so politicians developed the bad habit of “temporarily borrowing” the money and using it for non-Social Security purposes. That bad habit never was broken, and every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the tax hike, has been spent, leaving no real assets in the trust fund.

This is where the continuing problem started.

Correct for the most part, but it was LBJ in the 60's with a House and Senate on his side that rolled the SS 'Fund" and the Highway Gas Tax "Fund" into the general budget. Fortunately they did not get their hands on the aviation gas tax fund.

[drcar]

some get offended by the word entitlement.

:shrug:by definition, they are entitlements.



noun
noun: entitlement; plural noun: entitlements


ththe fact of having a right to something.

Words have many different interpretations and it all depends on who wants is saying the word:

Noun: the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment

I for one and think you would agree, its NOT special treatment,but the law which I had no choice but to be in and pay into, with the promise I would get back an agreed upon amount.

[doodles]

True, they are NOT entitlements. The government does not pay for them; we and our employers paid into them and it’s our money.

[MandoMan]

Here is what happens when we put people who really are not disciplined in charge of SS.

Abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund Began in the 1980s
by Allen W. Smith / November 28th, 2009

The mishandling of Social Security funds has been going on since the mid-1980s. As soon as the surpluses, resulting from the 1983 payroll tax hike, first began to flow into the Treasury, politicians from both political parties began using the money like a giant slush fund. At that time, it would be at least 30 years before the funds would actually be needed for Social Security, so politicians developed the bad habit of “temporarily borrowing” the money and using it for non-Social Security purposes. That bad habit never was broken, and every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the tax hike, has been spent, leaving no real assets in the trust fund.

This is where the continuing problem started.

While this was true, the Social Security Administration says that nearly all of that money has been repaid and used. If there is a temporary surplus in the federal government, it is not allowed to just put the money in stocks or something.

There is an easy solution to the “Social Security crisis”. Raise the withholding tax for both employees and employers by 0.2% a year for five years, then keep it there. That extra total of 2% per year from us to our Social Security fund will do the trick. Starting next year, I think, the full retirement benefit age will be 67. It’s 66 at present. That helps a lot, too. If everyone waited until then instead of drawing money at 62, that would help.

In twenty years, most Baby Boomers will be dead, and there will be less demand.

[riley2011]

those entitlements allow us to be extremely generous with our church and the charities that we choose to support...as did the stimulus checks that we received earlier this year...and as will any future stimulus money

so from that perspective...yes, it's important to us.

Social security is NOT an entitlement. You paid for it.

[Girlcopper]

Since this topic is current, my oldest son asked if Social Security and Medicare are important to us.
We responded YES in they both provide financial security. We explained the obvious and also said without Soc. Security we could not have purchased the house we did in TV.
But that's us. Have others used Soc. Sec. for other needs or wants?
How about Medicare? Did it have a big impact on you when you joined?
The SS is just spare cents for entertainment. No one could live on it without other pensions, savings or income. Medicare is ok but had better insurance when I was working. Neither is a big deal

[MandoMan]

Since this topic is current, my oldest son asked if Social Security and Medicare are important to us.
We responded YES in they both provide financial security. We explained the obvious and also said without Soc. Security we could not have purchased the house we did in TV.
But that's us. Have others used Soc. Sec. for other needs or wants?
How about Medicare? Did it have a big impact on you when you joined?

My entire Social Security check goes to pay for my mortgage on my home in The Villages, the amenities fee, electricity, gardening, mowing, spraying, pool cleaning. If it ended, I could sell it all and move back to my modest paid-for house in Pennsylvania and get by on the growth of my investments, but things would be tight. Most people aren’t so fortunate.

As for the person who says some of us are paying four times as much for Medicare Part B as others, you must be bringing in at least half a million per year, and I assume you can afford it. Maintaining an income level similar to what I earned before retirement (with Social Security now making up about 40% of my total income), my Part B went up from the $144 a month everyone who is single pays to $204 a month. I can afford that. I know a lot of people can’t manage $144. I feel blessed to live in America.

I do think that those paying the most in Social Security (several times more than I ever paid) should receive much larger payments. Isn’t the maximum now around $3,070 a month? That’s about twice the average, yes, but people pay Social Security taxes while working on up to $137,500. (If you were earning, say, $75,000 a year before retirement, your Social Security check would be about 80% that high.) When they retire, they will end up paying taxes on much or most of their income. People who paid at the top level get a monthly Social Security payment equal to about 25% of their previous income. Those at the bottom, about 60%. I don’t think those at the bottom should receive less, and I’m willing to have those with larger incomes pay on more than $137,500, but they should also get larger benefits when they retire. So if they pay the tax on their half a million a year instead of on $137,500, at least double their monthly check. It’s only fair.

The Social Security Administration says that without Social Security checks, 38% of retired people would be living under the poverty line. With it as it is, only 10% of retirees are under the poverty line, and most of those were In poverty before they retired, too.

Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-top-ten-facts-about-social-security)

[Girlcopper]

Here is what happens when we put people who really are not disciplined in charge of SS.

Abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund Began in the 1980s
by Allen W. Smith / November 28th, 2009

The mishandling of Social Security funds has been going on since the mid-1980s. As soon as the surpluses, resulting from the 1983 payroll tax hike, first began to flow into the Treasury, politicians from both political parties began using the money like a giant slush fund. At that time, it would be at least 30 years before the funds would actually be needed for Social Security, so politicians developed the bad habit of “temporarily borrowing” the money and using it for non-Social Security purposes. That bad habit never was broken, and every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the tax hike, has been spent, leaving no real assets in the trust fund.

This is where the continuing problem started.
Way off the topic here. The question was do you rely on it. No one is debating if there is a problem with it. As usual, looking at the glass half empty

[GaryKoca]

Social Security is somewhat important, but medicare is really important. Medicare plus my Federal employee Blue Cross means I won't get wiped out with really high medical bills.

[rlcooper70]

Social Security and Medicare .... both need more funding .... both should have been addressed decades ago but politicians have been unwilling to fix either of them.

If the kindergarten class is 30 instead of the normal 20 ... the school can figure out that the first grade will be larger "next year" ... so "get ready people" should be the model. Ignoring the problems that we can see clearly ... how does that make any sense?

[stadry]

Since this topic is current, my oldest son asked if Social Security and Medicare are important to us. We responded YES in they both provide financial security. We explained the obvious and also said without Soc. Security we could not have purchased the house we did in TV.
But that's us. Have others used Soc. Sec. for other needs or wants? How about Medicare? Did it have a big impact on you when you joined?

is your son a self-supporting adult ? i can't imagine our daughters asking such. does he not realize by now no one worries about YOUR $ other than YOU ? am mystified of course,,, its so basic 1 might as well ask 'are your lungs important to your daily life ?'

[FromNY]

For many, this may come as a shock..For many it is their main income. Have seen situations when a spouse dies and pension or SS dies with that person the survivor cannot continue to keep their homes. Those " hated" apartments may become more affordable to a person whose income is cut. Maybe here in The Villages most use SS as play money buy I would bet without it many would be very concerned. How many use SS to support their adult offspring? Supplement for Healthcare that high debatable chip away at savings? Maybe the son who asked if these are important would benefit from some financial lessons? SS and Medicare are not perfect but think how currently your financial health would be without them. Ever notice some of your neighbors work? Maybe because even with SS things are tight. Not everyone was blessed with government pensions or big corp packages upon retirement. Yet they were blessed with the ability to manage to live here in a comfortable way. Yes some of you are financial wizards and mega solvent. You are often unaware not everyone is like you. Be grateful and kind to others.

[Kgcetm]

Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements. If anything they are lifetime taxes that generally fail to reach the payout of a lifetime of conservative investments. I resent the implication advanced by an effete ruling elite that after 55 years of contribution to the programs i have become a burden on the system.

[coconutmama]

Since this topic is current, my oldest son asked if Social Security and Medicare are important to us.
We responded YES in they both provide financial security. We explained the obvious and also said without Soc. Security we could not have purchased the house we did in TV.
But that's us. Have others used Soc. Sec. for other needs or wants?
How about Medicare? Did it have a big impact on you when you joined?

Social Security is extremely important to us, about 1/2 our monthly income. So, yes, Medicare is important too. The property values around here would plummet if these programs were diminished. Indeed, for all of Florida.

[lindaelane]

They are very important. "Public service messages" saying they are about to be gutted are lies, proven lies, funded by partisans. Do your own research of sources, looking at more than one "side" and you can confirm they are lying.

[Marykschulz]

Good luck to all of us in keeping our social security. A promise has already been made to abolish the payroll tax which funds it in the new year. Hopefully new leadership will avert this catastrophe.

[mrf6969]

I am not so sure that Social Security has been the best option for saving money for retirement. I earned almost twice what my wife did over the years before retirement.
My social security pays me $2500.00 a month before taxes. Her well managed pension pays her $3500.00.
I guess you could say this is just another example of how government manages verses how much better private enterprise does.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Yes it’s a supplement to my pensions and investments.

I wish I was in that position. My pension and investments supplement my Social Security. Without Medicare, I'd be dead.

[Marine1974]

I think , since people pay up to a a maximum , currently around $130,000 of income at about 6% , no it’s not correct in saying people with higher incomes pay more . Also the people who had lower incomes paid less and get a much smaller social security benefit.

[LoisR]

What is the real motive of this thread ? Political ? Ask your question a different way - If you are wealthy enough are you willing to give up your earned benefits for the greater good or no I sacrificed and paid into the system and now it's time to withdraw from my savings account. Almost a Catch 22.
The real motive of this thread, and every other thread, is for people to think. Something we haven't seen in politics for some time.

[retiredguy123]

I am not so sure that Social Security has been the best option for saving money for retirement. I earned almost twice what my wife did over the years before retirement.
My social security pays me $2500.00 a month before taxes. Her well managed pension pays her $3500.00.
I guess you could say this is just another example of how government manages verses how much better private enterprise does.
Apples and oranges.

Most private pension benefits are paid as a direct proportion to how much the employee earned and contributed to the pension plan.

Social Security benefits are paid on a scale that pays a higher proportional benefit to lower income workers who paid less into the plan.

[Stu from NYC]

While this was true, the Social Security Administration says that nearly all of that money has been repaid and used. If there is a temporary surplus in the federal government, it is not allowed to just put the money in stocks or something.

There is an easy solution to the “Social Security crisis”. Raise the withholding tax for both employees and employers by 0.2% a year for five years, then keep it there. That extra total of 2% per year from us to our Social Security fund will do the trick. Starting next year, I think, the full retirement benefit age will be 67. It’s 66 at present. That helps a lot, too. If everyone waited until then instead of drawing money at 62, that would help.

In twenty years, most Baby Boomers will be dead, and there will be less demand.

We are all living longer and in addition raise the retirement age slowly to say 70.

Not enough people paying into the system to support the benefits long term.

[donfey]

my bad I absolutely did not intend to refer to them as 'entitlements'....I object to that term also...and for the life of me, I don't know why I used that term

We all paid into these systems with the expectation that when we retired we would benefit from having paid into them

sorry...I didn't mean to create controversy

We paid into both systems during our working lives, and now are ENTITLED to the benefits. What's the problem with that? MY problem is with people who receive "benefits" who did NOT pay in. That should not be part of either system but, instead, be called welfare, which is what it is.

[Stu from NYC]

Apples and oranges.

Most private pension benefits are paid as a direct proportion to how much the employee earned and contributed to the pension plan.

Social Security benefits are paid on a scale that pays a higher proportional benefit to lower income workers who paid less into the plan.

Very true. For many people, would have done better by opting out of the program early on and funding own retirement.

[retiredguy123]

We paid into both systems during our working lives, and now are ENTITLED to the benefits. What's the problem with that? MY problem is with people who receive "benefits" who did NOT pay in. That should not be part of either system but, instead, be called welfare, which is what it is.
I agree. One way to improve the system would be to eliminate the spouse benefit. There are thousands, (or millions?) of people receiving a spouse benefit who never paid anything into the system. And, a spouse who was married for more than 10 years and then gets divorced can receive the spouse benefit without ever contributing to the system. In fact, a worker who has been married and divorced several times will create a spouse benefit for every one of his/her ex-spouses, as long as the marriage lasted 10 years.

[sallyg]

Extremely. We depend on both SS and Medicare.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Amen to that!!i started working at my dad’s restaurant when I was 12. At 15 I started working outside of my family’s business. Didn't retire until 67. Entitlement?? QUOTE=drcar;1844250]I believe that these programs are important to MANY people, but I do NOT like the term "entitlements", since I paid into them my entire life, I do not consider them entitlements.[/QUOTE]

[Fisherman]

My husband and I worked hard for 40 years to build a secure retirement through IRAs and 401K plans. Our employers paid in to SS and money was taken out of our paychecks for all these years, many of which, we topped out contributions with our substantial earnings. We move to the Villages, two years later, we retire and he has a massive heart attack and dies. A healthy young person who never got to see retirement after working hard all those years. What happens, I am left in grief and despair, along with the fact that ONE HALF of our SS monthly income is now gone. After their calculations, because our earnings were so similar..... I get mine, plus, only $80 of his because his earnings were slightly higher. The rest of his monthly benefit is taken away. Money that he earned, and was forced to pay in to SS and Medicare.The government was suppose to take our hard earned dollars and invest it wisely as a forced savings plan. Upon his death, the surviving spouse should be entitled to at a minimum what HE paid in to it. They could keep the employers contributions. If we were not forced to pay in to SS, and we had invested those SS payments on our own, upon his death, it would be my money to help support me through retirement and not money that the government actually steals away when your spouse dies. Social Security was designed as a forced savings plan for retirement to protect and provide supplemental income in later life. Many, sadly, for whatever reasons, depend totally on SS income alone. One could lose their home very easily when their retirement is cut in half upon the death of their spouse. So, yes, both these items that we and our employers invested our hard earned dollars In to are very important. Common sense.

[will1546]

Entitlements they are not, you/we paid for them.

[Joe C.]

Instead of calling them "entitlements" they should be referred to as "Government Obligations", as that is what SS and Medicare are. We paid for them all our working lives, and in return, the government repays them to us upon retirement.

[LianneMigiano]

I believe that these programs are important to MANY people, but I do NOT like the term "entitlements", since I paid into them my entire life, I do not consider them entitlements.
I obtained a printout of all of our earnings and contributions into SS - then, the payouts to us - and totalled it for each of us. I am 79 and my husband is 85. We, long ao, have collected WAY more in SS than we ever had taken out of our pay. I'm sure that (unless you just began collecting a few years ago) would find that same result were you to obtain all of the information that I did in order to calculate the benefits!

[KRM0614]

The level of importance for Social Security and Medicare is heavily dependent on a person's overall income. Both systems are designed to transfer wealth from higher income people to lower income people. All working people contribute to the system, but the distribution of benefits is very skewed in favor of those who did not contribute as much. In the case of Medicare, most people need it, and everyone receives the same benefits. But, higher income people pay more while working, and when they retire, they may pay as much as about 4 times the monthly Part B premium as those who pay the basic premium.
Wrong social security and Medicare is not a transfer of wealth. WhenD
FDR created SS it was clear it was supposed to supplement savings to retire. He designed it through payroll tax with holdings, original system was 6 persons contributing to one person retiring. With the onset of deficit spending starting with FDR thru today combined with disincentive to work thru welfare disability fraud and keeping young adults on Obamacare. However social security contributions are now 1.5 persons to 1 person. When the Congress split social Security into 3 pots - retirees, widows & orphans and disabled it was underfunded because it became a shell game. Medicare is funded through the budget and it was invested poorly for both social security and Medicare.

[Joe V.]

I obtained a printout of all of our earnings and contributions into SS - then, the payouts to us - and totalled it for each of us. I am 79 and my husband is 85. We, long ao, have collected WAY more in SS than we ever had taken out of our pay. I'm sure that (unless you just began collecting a few years ago) would find that same result were you to obtain all of the information that I did in order to calculate the benefits!

Can you tell me how many who contributed never got a cent or just a small fraction of their withholding due to dying before they became eligible to collect? Now that number would be interesting to know.

[Curtisbwp]

SS: since i am a victem of President Regan's "windfall elimination act" my $206.00 a month has no bearing on my finantial status.
Medicare is important! When coupled with "tricare for life" i have no issues.

[Alaska Butch]

. How can you call it an “entitlement”. It is in effect a savings account with a very poor return. I would support mandatory private savings such as 403B or 401K over social security. The returns are much better

[manaboutown]

I obtained a printout of all of our earnings and contributions into SS - then, the payouts to us - and totalled it for each of us. I am 79 and my husband is 85. We, long ao, have collected WAY more in SS than we ever had taken out of our pay. I'm sure that (unless you just began collecting a few years ago) would find that same result were you to obtain all of the information that I did in order to calculate the benefits!

Money has a time value. Did you assign 4% to 6% compounded interest from the time it was made to each contribution?

[crydzanich]

those entitlements allow us to be extremely generous with our church and the charities that we choose to support...as did the stimulus checks that we received earlier this year...and as will any future stimulus money

so from that perspective...yes, it's important to us.

I know I worked very hard and paid into both all my life. I earned both. Unfortunately for me, I need both. My job did not have a pension plan and neither did my husbands. My IRA took a couple of big hits over the years so I don’t get much help from that. I never thought that at my age I’d still be working but I have to if I want to continue to live here where I feel safe.
So please don’t call them entitlements.

[retiredguy123]

Wrong social security and Medicare is not a transfer of wealth. WhenD
FDR created SS it was clear it was supposed to supplement savings to retire. He designed it through payroll tax with holdings, original system was 6 persons contributing to one person retiring. With the onset of deficit spending starting with FDR thru today combined with disincentive to work thru welfare disability fraud and keeping young adults on Obamacare. However social security contributions are now 1.5 persons to 1 person. When the Congress split social Security into 3 pots - retirees, widows & orphans and disabled it was underfunded because it became a shell game. Medicare is funded through the budget and it was invested poorly for both social security and Medicare.
In my opinion, when you pay some beneficiaries more money then they contributed and you pay other beneficiaries less money than they contributed, that is a transfer of wealth.

[jimjamuser]

my bad I absolutely did not intend to refer to them as 'entitlements'....I object to that term also...and for the life of me, I don't know why I used that term

We all paid into these systems with the expectation that when we retired we would benefit from having paid into them

sorry...I didn't mean to create controversy
Interesting that today there is another thread about distortion of word meanings. Or the emotions stirred by various words. This is a good example.

[ValSetz]

What is the real motive of this thread ? Political ? Ask your question a different way - If you are wealthy enough are you willing to give up your earned benefits for the greater good or no I sacrificed and paid into the system and now it's time to withdraw from my savings account. Almost a Catch 22. Waited until 70-1/2 to collect SS to maximize benefit. Would be OK living off investments without SS IF amount SS would have paid could be removed from investments without further taxation - I give up SS but you allow me to withdraw same amount of money with zero taxes due. Currently because of good stockmarket have made just over limit to not avoid IRMA so am paying $200/month for Medicare. Feel that the sacrifices I made in living frugally will come back to bite me in the a** and will leave me wondering who was the bigger fool - those who spent or those who invested and saved for their old age? Using my own investment income equal to SS benefit, if tax free, would greatly reduce what I now pay to the Federal government by putting me in a much lower tax bracket and allow me to extend the length I can live off of my own wealth.

[SouthJerseyGirl]

The level of importance for Social Security and Medicare is heavily dependent on a person's overall income. Both systems are designed to transfer wealth from higher income people to lower income people. All working people contribute to the system, but the distribution of benefits is very skewed in favor of those who did not contribute as much. In the case of Medicare, most people need it, and everyone receives the same benefits. But, higher income people pay more while working, and when they retire, they may pay as much as about 4 times the monthly Part B premium as those who pay the basic premium.

Perhaps Medicare transfers some wealth to lower income people BUT Social Security is a different story. There is a CAP on how much a high earner pays into the program. Earners over the limit are not subject to withholding. So dollar for dollar, lower income earners pay a higher percentage of their pay into the program.

[Byte1]

To answer the question, yes SS means something to me, but Medicare was a waste of my earnings for those many, many years I was employed. On the other hand, if the GOV was better at managing SS, I would be getting a heck of a lot more of my money back. If they would have privatized my SS, I would be living a higher lifestyle because just a little interest compounded would make my SS worth a lot more.
Medicare was a waste of my earnings. I paid all my work life into Medicare and get nothing from it because I still have private health care. When you reach 65yo and become eligible for Medicare, you receive ONLY Medicare A which is hospitalization only, unless you PAY for Medicare B while you are retired. And even then, you still have to pay a supplement if you want a prescription plan. To me, Medicare is worthless. And NOW some want to allow the Gov to run ALL of your health care needs. Good luck. The gov is terrible at running/managing any business, so I do not want them running my health care or anything else.
That's my opinion. I have lived half my life overseas so I do know something of how socialized medicine works in other countries. Believe me, if you allow the gov to run your health care now, after having private insurance for so long, you will regret it. The only reason folks in other countries like gov run health care is because they have never had anything else and are dependent on a gov nanny. When the gov promises you benefits, the money comes from somewhere to pay for it. Hope you do not mind a 50%+ payroll tax on your paycheck. Try living on half your paycheck. In our system, most folks have decent health care. In socialized medicine run by the gov. only the wealthy have good health care.

[jimjamuser]

Here is what happens when we put people who really are not disciplined in charge of SS.

Abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund Began in the 1980s
by Allen W. Smith / November 28th, 2009

The mishandling of Social Security funds has been going on since the mid-1980s. As soon as the surpluses, resulting from the 1983 payroll tax hike, first began to flow into the Treasury, politicians from both political parties began using the money like a giant slush fund. At that time, it would be at least 30 years before the funds would actually be needed for Social Security, so politicians developed the bad habit of “temporarily borrowing” the money and using it for non-Social Security purposes. That bad habit never was broken, and every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the tax hike, has been spent, leaving no real assets in the trust fund.

This is where the continuing problem started.
That was an interesting post. I may check that out.

[retiredguy123]

Perhaps Medicare transfers some wealth to lower income people BUT Social Security is a different story. There is a CAP on how much a high earner pays into the program. Earners over the limit are not subject to withholding. So dollar for dollar, lower income earners pay a higher percentage of their pay into the program.
It's true that there is a cap on the tax, but there is also a cap on the benefit you can receive. But, overall, the monthly benefit people receive is heavily weighted to benefit lower income workers. A person who pays in the maximum amount of SS tax during their working years, will never receive as much in benefits as they paid in contributions. But, many lower income workers will receive a lot more in benefits than they paid in contributions while working. It is not a straight line proration of benefits vs contributions. That is the way the system works.

[dewilson58]

Entitlements they are not, you/we paid for them.


Which makes you entitled to them as an entitlement. :ohdear:

[perrjojo]

I believe that these programs are important to MANY people, but I do NOT like the term "entitlements", since I paid into them my entire life, I do not consider them entitlements.
I always consider SS an entitlement because I was required to pay into for 35 years; therefore, I am entitled to receive it.

[Stu from NYC]

Which makes you entitled to them as an entitlement. :ohdear:

Can I quote you on that?

[jimjamuser]

Very true. For many people, would have done better by opting out of the program early on and funding own retirement.
Too many people "think" that they are a stock market "wizards". I have know many very smart individuals that have gotten severely burned by the stock market. It is a LOT like Las Vegas - 90% of the time for the high risk takers - they lose and the HOUSE wins. Winning at gambling AND the stock market can be addictive and thus cloud your perception.

[jimjamuser]

I agree. One way to improve the system would be to eliminate the spouse benefit. There are thousands, (or millions?) of people receiving a spouse benefit who never paid anything into the system. And, a spouse who was married for more than 10 years and then gets divorced can receive the spouse benefit without ever contributing to the system. In fact, a worker who has been married and divorced several times will create a spouse benefit for every one of his/her ex-spouses, as long as the marriage lasted 10 years.
That could(?) start a firestorm! It is very anti-women. 60 years ago very few women worked outside the home (where they worked hard) - often they decided or were compelled to have many children because infant mortality was high - divorced women earned scorn and social stigma in most cases. Maybe not the moneyed upper class? Women earned far less than men for the same job (if a woman could even get the job). WW2 started to change that, but only slowly. About 1970 the unions started providing jobs of equal pay for women. Today women earn 75 cents compared to a dollar for a man in equal jobs.

[P&WBryant]

Please don't call SS an entitlement!!! We have paid into.that fund all our working lives. And so have our employers. SS is ours, not something that hopefully we are or will one day be entitled to.

[jimjamuser]

To answer the question, yes SS means something to me, but Medicare was a waste of my earnings for those many, many years I was employed. On the other hand, if the GOV was better at managing SS, I would be getting a heck of a lot more of my money back. If they would have privatized my SS, I would be living a higher lifestyle because just a little interest compounded would make my SS worth a lot more.
Medicare was a waste of my earnings. I paid all my work life into Medicare and get nothing from it because I still have private health care. When you reach 65yo and become eligible for Medicare, you receive ONLY Medicare A which is hospitalization only, unless you PAY for Medicare B while you are retired. And even then, you still have to pay a supplement if you want a prescription plan. To me, Medicare is worthless. And NOW some want to allow the Gov to run ALL of your health care needs. Good luck. The gov is terrible at running/managing any business, so I do not want them running my health care or anything else.
That's my opinion. I have lived half my life overseas so I do know something of how socialized medicine works in other countries. Believe me, if you allow the gov to run your health care now, after having private insurance for so long, you will regret it. The only reason folks in other countries like gov run health care is because they have never had anything else and are dependent on a gov nanny. When the gov promises you benefits, the money comes from somewhere to pay for it. Hope you do not mind a 50%+ payroll tax on your paycheck. Try living on half your paycheck. In our system, most folks have decent health care. In socialized medicine run by the gov. only the wealthy have good health care.
To compare the health system of one country to another - you need to use INFANT MORTALITY as a yardstick, which is the best measure. So, last time I looked at the world list for infant mortality, the Scandinavian Countries with Universal Health Care were all in the top 10 and the US was down at 20 or 30. That is the only way to compare countries - use an objective measure, not a personal and subjective way.

[STLRAY]

Can someone explain what it is about the word entitlement that bothers you? I have been paying into the system since I was 13 and started paying in the maximum around age 30. That entitles me to a benefit when I reach the specified age. Now, I could understand if we were calling it welfare or something like that. But its not welfare. Most of us paid into the system and are therefore entitled to a specific benefit at the appropriate age.

[dewilson58]

Can I quote you on that?


Sure, no patent pending.

[retiredguy123]

Apparently, Medicare is even important to Joe Namath. In his Medicare commercial, he claims that he called Medicare and he is eligible to receive meals delivered to his house. According to Google, he has a net worth of $25 million.

[Kilmacowen]

I agree. One way to improve the system would be to eliminate the spouse benefit. There are thousands, (or millions?) of people receiving a spouse benefit who never paid anything into the system. And, a spouse who was married for more than 10 years and then gets divorced can receive the spouse benefit without ever contributing to the system. In fact, a worker who has been married and divorced several times will create a spouse benefit for every one of his/her ex-spouses, as long as the marriage lasted 10 years.

Spouse and ex-spouses have to share the benefit if they qualify.

[retiredguy123]

Spouse and ex-spouses have to share the benefit if they qualify.
Not true. Here is an excerpt from the SSA website about ex-spouse benefits.

"The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the benefits of your ex-spouse and his or her current spouse."

[Kilmacowen]

Not true. Here is an excerpt from the SSA website about ex-spouse benefits.

"The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the benefits of your ex-spouse and his or her current spouse."

I know someone who is sharing benefits with an ex-wife. You are referring to a woman that has her own benefits.

[retiredguy123]

I know someone who is sharing benefits with an ex-wife. You are referring to a woman that has her own benefits.
That is not true. They may have a private agreement to share a benefit, but any ex-spouse who was married for at least 10 years is entitled to receive a spouse benefit from SSA and they do not need to share it with anyone. The ex-spouse benefits can apply to multiple spouses as long as each one was married to the SSA worker for 10 years. There is no sharing of SS benefits. However, you can only receive one benefit at a time, based on the largest benefit you are eligible for. Is it possible that the ex-spouse was not married for 10 years? In that case, they would not be entitled to any spouse benefit from SSA, but the current spouse could share it with a private agreement.

[Bay Kid]

After paying the government SS for over 50 years they are now starting to give some back. Personally I would have rather not paid the government for my retirement (SS) and invested the money myself.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

The level of importance for Social Security and Medicare is heavily dependent on a person's overall income. Both systems are designed to transfer wealth from higher income people to lower income people. All working people contribute to the system, but the distribution of benefits is very skewed in favor of those who did not contribute as much. In the case of Medicare, most people need it, and everyone receives the same benefits. But, higher income people pay more while working, and when they retire, they may pay as much as about 4 times the monthly Part B premium as those who pay the basic premium.
and I don’t get much lol $128 a month

[jblum315]

Very important to me. They help pay for the home care assistance that I need

[jblum315]

If the US Govt, specifically, the military, had kept the promise of free medical care for the life of a retiree, I would not need Medicare.
Southern shutters or just shutters

[kathyspear]

I obtained a printout of all of our earnings and contributions into SS - then, the payouts to us - and totalled it for each of us. I am 79 and my husband is 85. We, long ao, have collected WAY more in SS than we ever had taken out of our pay. I'm sure that (unless you just began collecting a few years ago) would find that same result were you to obtain all of the information that I did in order to calculate the benefits!

Not everyone collects more than he or she put into the system (obviously).

My father passed away the day his first SS check came in the mail. My mother had to return it because he died on May 31st and the check was for the month of June. :(

kathy

[kathyspear]

That is not true. They may have a private agreement to share a benefit, but any ex-spouse who was married for at least 10 years is entitled to receive a spouse benefit from SSA and they do not need to share it with anyone. The ex-spouse benefits can apply to multiple spouses as long as each one was married to the SSA worker for 10 years. There is no sharing of SS benefits. However, you can only receive one benefit at a time, based on the largest benefit you are eligible for. Is it possible that the ex-spouse was not married for 10 years? In that case, they would not be entitled to any spouse benefit from SSA, but the current spouse could share it with a private agreement.

Perhaps they are sharing the funds in a retirement account (401k, Roth, etc.) An account in one party's name might be considered a marital asset because it was earned during the marriage and a judge might order it to be shared post-divorce.

kathy

[Malsua]

To compare the health system of one country to another - you need to use INFANT MORTALITY as a yardstick, which is the best measure. So, last time I looked at the world list for infant mortality, the Scandinavian Countries with Universal Health Care were all in the top 10 and the US was down at 20 or 30. That is the only way to compare countries - use an objective measure, not a personal and subjective way.


The reporting standards are not the same between countries and comparing them tells you very little. If you look at the article below, you'll see that most of the "disadvantage" the US has in IMR disappears when they account for age at birth and birth weight. In fact in the first month, the US has a BETTER IMR than Finland and Austria. It seems that most of the issue with IMR is based on socioeconomic class which drives it down. Most of this happens when the child is home in a poor neighborhood after the first month.

From the National Institute of health. Why Is Infant Mortality Higher in the United States Than in Europe? (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856058/)

>>>> Cross-country comparisons of aggregate infant mortality rates provide very limited insight, for two reasons. First, a well-recognized problem is that countries vary in their reporting of births near the threshold of viability. Such reporting differences may generate misleading comparisons of how infant mortality varies across countries. Second, even within a comparably-reported sample, the observation that mortality rates differ one year post-birth provides little guidance on what factors are driving the US disadvantage<<<

[Stu from NYC]

Not everyone collects more than he or she put into the system (obviously).

My father passed away the day his first SS check came in the mail. My mother had to return it because he died on May 31st and the check was for the month of June. :(

kathy

When the system was set up the retirement age was 65 even though the vast majority did not live that long.

That allowed SS to build up a very large nest egg.

Not exactly fair to the people who paid in and didnt live to collect.

If someone in the private sector set up a system like that they would probably be doing 10 years in Leavenworth as they used to say.

[Byte1]

To compare the health system of one country to another - you need to use INFANT MORTALITY as a yardstick, which is the best measure. So, last time I looked at the world list for infant mortality, the Scandinavian Countries with Universal Health Care were all in the top 10 and the US was down at 20 or 30. That is the only way to compare countries - use an objective measure, not a personal and subjective way.

Nope. Infant mortality is a very small part of determining the quality of health care in differing countries. Like I said before, if you haven't lived in other countries, you have absolutely no way of understanding the difference between "their" health care system and treatment and ours (America). Another area to consider when comparing is the cost and the available service. But, Americans think that other countries are great because they have "free" health care. There is NO "free" health care. If you pay out half or more of your paycheck to the gov to pay for the "free" stuff, you will appreciate the difference also.

[Byte1]

Not true. Here is an excerpt from the SSA website about ex-spouse benefits.

"The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the benefits of your ex-spouse and his or her current spouse."

I disagree. A spouse's SS is based upon her earnings. My spouse received SS before I did because she is older. When I started receiving my SS, SSA asked me if I wanted my spouse to have her's computed on half of mine, which was a larger amount. Of course we said "yes." My wife receives more now than she did based on her own earnings.

[retiredguy123]

I disagree. A spouse's SS is based upon her earnings. My spouse received SS before I did because she is older. When I started receiving my SS, SSA asked me if I wanted my spouse to have her's computed on half of mine, which was a larger amount. Of course we said "yes." My wife receives more now than she did based on her own earnings.
I think we are talking about two different things. I was replying to a poster who said that an ex-spouse had to share their spouse benefit with a current spouse. That is not true. If an ex-spouse was married to a SSN worker for at least 10 years, they qualify for the "spouse" benefit regardless of whether the worker is currently married, or if there are other ex-spouses. Anyone who qualifies for an SS benefit can receive the benefit without any sharing. If you qualify for a benefit based on your own earnings and also based on your spouse's earnings, you can opt to go with the higher of the two benefits.

[B-flat]

I believe that these programs are important to MANY people, but I do NOT like the term "entitlements", since I paid into them my entire life, I do not consider them entitlements.

DITTO and that’s all in CAPS for a reason!!! :bigbow:

[Byte1]

I think we are talking about two different things. I was replying to a poster who said that an ex-spouse had to share their spouse benefit with a current spouse. That is not true. If an ex-spouse was married to a SSN worker for at least 10 years, they qualify for the "spouse" benefit regardless of whether the worker is currently married, or if there are other ex-spouses. Anyone who qualifies for an SS benefit can receive the benefit without any sharing. If you qualify for a benefit based on your own earnings and also based on your spouse's earnings, you can opt to go with the higher of the two benefits.

Ahh, my misunderstanding. That's the way I understand it also.

[John41]

Too many people "think" that they are a stock market "wizards". I have know many very smart individuals that have gotten severely burned by the stock market. It is a LOT like Las Vegas - 90% of the time for the high risk takers - they lose and the HOUSE wins. Winning at gambling AND the stock market can be addictive and thus cloud your perception.

Index investing and dollar cost averaging has far outperformed managed investing by “wizards” and just takes some emotional control not to sell when the market slumps. Every high school student should read the book “A Random Walk Down Wall Street” by Burton’s Malkiel.

[GoPacers]

When the system was set up the retirement age was 65 even though the vast majority did not live that long.

That allowed SS to build up a very large nest egg.

Not exactly fair to the people who paid in and didnt live to collect.

If someone in the private sector set up a system like that they would probably be doing 10 years in Leavenworth as they used to say.

Social Security was never intended as a system where you got back what you put in.

Yes, there are people who don't get back what they put in but imagine the uproar if you got cut off when you reached the amount you paid in. You can't have it both ways.

Social Security is broken because too many people are getting benefits that exceed what they contributed. There are also challenges with population growth, or the lack thereof which leads to more people drawing benefits than those that are paying in.

The system needs an overhaul and some people are going to be unhappy. The longer Congress kicks the can down the road the bigger the gap becomes. Congress continues to accumulate debt at extraordinary levels that someone will have to pay back. Those of us over 60 are hugely fortunate as most/all of the solutions will fall on our children and grand-children.

[GreySkies]

I was fortunate enough to make good financial decisions so that in retirement I would not have to depend on either. However, knowing that I paid into the SS program during my entire professional employment career I would still expect to get the share I am entitled to regardless of my current financial position.

[Art cov]

When the government comes up with a plan to socialize security for its people, it’s not always in the best interests for its people. Not many live into the 90’s. They knew the average age of death. They in government ( no matter of party) could only see a win win situation. Pay all your life into ss and most die before or shortly after receiving a few years of checks. What a bargain! However the wise investors would’ve had a million $ to leave their children or spouse. Probably a lot more than $1,000,000. Now then, people who blew their money and lived paycheck to paycheck would have nothing but government housing and food stamps. Of course the streets could be lined with the homeless! (Just a thought) the Amish n old order mennonites never pay one penny to social security and they seem to manage well being out of the system.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements. If anything they are lifetime taxes that generally fail to reach the payout of a lifetime of conservative investments. I resent the implication advanced by an effete ruling elite that after 55 years of contribution to the programs i have become a burden on the system.

I always have an issue with the way that the word "entitlement" is often used in this argument. IMHO, we who have paid into the SS system for decades are entitled to the benefits that we have paid for all these years.

Calling welfare and medicaid entitlements is wrong to me. Those reaping those benefits are not entitled to them. They are charity.

I think that we have it backward.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Social Security was never intended as a system where you got back what you put in.

Yes, there are people who don't get back what they put in but imagine the uproar if you got cut off when you reached the amount you paid in. You can't have it both ways.

Social Security is broken because too many people are getting benefits that exceed what they contributed. There are also challenges with population growth, or the lack thereof which leads to more people drawing benefits than those that are paying in.

The system needs an overhaul and some people are going to be unhappy. The longer Congress kicks the can down the road the bigger the gap becomes. Congress continues to accumulate debt at extraordinary levels that someone will have to pay back. Those of us over 60 are hugely fortunate as most/all of the solutions will fall on our children and grand-children.

If the money that we paid in was invested conservatively, we would all have more in our accounts that we paid in and for most of us, more than enough to last the rest of our lives.

Congress has "borrowed" money from this fund over the years and has never paid it back.

Consider all of the people that die before they reach retirement age. My wife died at age 59. My mother died at age 58. My mother in law died at 65 and never collected SS. So take that money and add it to the money that I, my brother and sister and my brother in law get and it's a lot more than any of us paid in.

This money was never invested properly and it Congress should never have been allowed to use it for other purposes.


And no one will ever pay back the national debt. It will just keep growing and growing and growing.

[retiredguy123]

I always have an issue with the way that the word "entitlement" is often used in this argument. IMHO, we who have paid into the SS system for decades are entitled to the benefits that we have paid for all these years.

Calling welfare and medicaid entitlements is wrong to me. Those reaping those benefits are not entitled to them. They are charity.

I think that we have it backward.
I agree. But, the word "charity" seems to have a different meaning when it comes from the Government. Some people feel a reluctance or guilt when taking charity from an individual or private organization. But, when it comes from the Government, they will take all they can get. Maybe that is why they call it an entitlement.

[jimbomaybe]

"Medicare is funded through the budget and it was invested poorly for both social security and Medicare." OK if these funds were "invested" and not a transfer of money where were they invested?

[Bay Kid]

If SS was an option most of us would never pay. Bad investment. The gov is gambling you won't live that long. But calling SS payments an entitlement is an insult to those that worked hard all their lives.

[Stu from NYC]

If SS was an option most of us would never pay. Bad investment. The gov is gambling you won't live that long. But calling SS payments an entitlement is an insult to those that worked hard all their lives.

SS started off as a ponzi scheme and now the govt is concentrating on mismanaging the funds.

Feel sorry for our kids and grandkids as congress keeps kicking the can down the road and the further they kick it the harder it will be to fix.

[skarra]

Nope. Infant mortality is a very small part of determining the quality of health care in differing countries. Like I said before, if you haven't lived in other countries, you have absolutely no way of understanding the difference between "their" health care system and treatment and ours (America). Another area to consider when comparing is the cost and the available service. But, Americans think that other countries are great because they have "free" health care. There is NO "free" health care. If you pay out half or more of your paycheck to the gov to pay for the "free" stuff, you will appreciate the difference also.

I'd be curious as to which country makes you pay more than half of your income to the government for healthcare.

I too have lived more than half my life overseas, and found the health care coverage in my original "home" country much preferable to what we have here - and the tax rates are about the same. Quality of care is just as good, perhaps even better in many ways. There's far too many middlemen with our system, and the billing is so opaque it makes competition a joke.

I really struggle to see what's so great about our heatlhcare system here given we spend so much for so little. For that I suspect we are over-billed and perhaps also over serviced.

[TimeForChange]

I worked and paid for these for 40 years. I spent time away from my family working when I would rather have been home. Yes, they both help a lot with our overall total income and make things easier but I would have moved here anyway even if I had to work part time. Medicare help with my wife's health issues a lot.